Monday, June 19, 2017

Alex Jones is discovering that no matter how big your microphone is, the collective microphone of the mainstream media that can be arrayed against you is even bigger:

Megyn Kelly presented a highly critical 19-minute piece on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on her NBC newsmagazine “Sunday Night” after a week of harsh criticism over the decision to present his views on network TV.

Jones is notorious for saying the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., was staged to promote tougher gun control laws. Twenty-six people, including 20 children, died, making it the second-deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history at the time.

NBC News brought on its elder statesman Tom Brokaw to join Kelly at the end of the program to say the parents of the Newtown victims “should not have to hear the cruel claim that it’s a lie.” Brokaw’s appearance was clearly an attempt to assuage the Sandy Hook families who were outraged and even threatened legal action against NBC News.

Jones, a radio host who operates the right-wing website Infowars, repeated his theory in the interview. Kelly said he never disavowed his previous statements in their conversations and noted there was no evidence to back his claims.

Kelly interviewed Newtown parent Neil Heslin, who described the devastating loss of his son. “I think he’s blessed to have his children to spend the day with, to speak to,” Heslin said. “I don’t have that.”

Kelly did have several heated exchanges with Jones, who was sweating profusely during their sit-down. She opened by pressing him on why he called the victims of the terrorist bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, “liberal trendies” when many were pre-teen girls.

Jones tried to rationalize his statements in the interview but for the most part seemed frustrated by Kelly’s queries.

In a live-streamed video aired on his YouTube channel, Jones reacted angrily to the final taped “Sunday Night” piece as it aired. He lambasted Kelly and the mainstream media.

“This is a giant, evil misrepresentation,” he said. “They continue to misrepresent what I’ve said and what I’ve done.”

Still, he declared victory — popping a bottle of champagne and angrily vowing to keep up the fight against “globalism” and the lies covered up by the mainstream media.

On social media, reaction was mostly predictable.

Media colleagues and critics generally gave Kelly high marks for the toughness of the piece, which disputed nearly every theory Jones has promoted through Infowars.

Far-right commentators repeatedly called the interview a “hit piece.”

The rigor of the piece will likely take some of the sting out of critiques of Kelly, some of which suggested that her transition from Fox News to NBC News was off to a rocky start.

Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote on Twitter: “Bottom line on NBC’s Alex Jones piece: Strong editing gave it an edge & made him look like a kook. Still a win for him; boosts his profile.”

Jones, likely sensing that NBC was going to toughen up the segment, had already sought to undermine Kelly by leaking taped phone conversations in which she assured him it was not going to be “a hit piece.”

Now, it manifestly was a hit piece. The "far-right commentators" were correct. The Post columnist openly admits as much when she refers to "strong editing" giving the piece "an edge" and making Jones "look like a kook". That is always the media's objective when profiling or quoting a Narrative denier. Notice how the LA Times piece takes its own shots: "was sweating profusely", "tried to rationalize", "seemed frustrated", "reacted angrily", and so forth.

This is why the average individual should NEVER speak to the media. Jones did everything people customarily recommend - he recorded the interview, he recorded the requests for the interview, he released some of the recordings, and he showed Megyn Kelly to be a liar - and yet that didn't prevent NBC from doing the usual hit piece or the rest of the media piling on and declaring it to be a triumphant expose of a kook.

Notice, too, the way in which the rest of the media is praising Kelly for disputing Jones's statements. But did she request a debate or an interview with him? And what sort of honest debate format has ever permitted one disputant to edit the statements made by both sides?

Now, the additional exposure may be worth it to Jones. It's too soon to say. Sometimes these calculated risks do work out, as Cernovich's appearance on 60 Minutes observably did. But the average individual must understand that it is a risk, and that even those with sizable platforms such as Alex Jones and Mike Cernovich are playing underdog. And really, what is the benefit of proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Megyn Kelly is a liar? Is there anyone in America who didn't already know that?

116 Comments:

ComcastNBC and the FCC have rec'ed complaints from me for over a year now; punitive billing, poor services. I told them Kelly is a liar and she will be a bad decision.

I thought about pulling those emails and sending those around but whats the point? it's redundancy on my part but I ensured I documented what comcastNBC is doing for 2 years now and how the FCC is semi worthless.

Here's hoping there are enough 'fed-up but don't where where to look' folks who will go check out Alex's stuff and begin to enter the rabbit hole. There might be a use -- negative attention may not always be a bad thing... IF you've already got a big enough army/horde/bandwidth/backing to take the lying hits... (Or, it may be poison anyway.) (At least Alex isn't as insane-appearing as he was a year or so ago...)

Alex forgot the first rule of the Narrative: all media outlets supporting it will support the spin. I had forgotten he was scheduled until I heard a local radio music station morning show talking about it. Despite having no interest or involvement in talk radio or shows like Alex Jones', they got their daily marching orders and went with the "strong edit" all the way.

Why do Mike and Jones and Spencer et. al. ever agree to a non-live interview? If you are going into the serpent pit, why make it worse by allowing them to interview you for 4 hours so they can then shorten it to the 8 minutes where, out of context, you look horrible?

Given the likely ratings, it was calculated risk that Alex Jones could take.

I still find it fascinating that Sandy Hook is the one they go to. They *clearly* are really concerned about something from Sandy Hook that they keep projecting. There's plenty of the crazier things they could go to, but one of the topics he's been sceptical but not determinative is Sandy Hook.

Sandy Hook is a rabbit hole I don't recommend going down. Something was setup, and something seems to have gone completely out of control.

I'm not entirely certain this was a bad idea for Alex. You have to keep in mind that at his level, the mainstream media is the only area left to him, unless he's going to expand internationally. So, if he doesn't want to stagnate, he's going to have to figure out how to engage it.

I suspect that is one reason he reached out to Mike and Andrew. Mike may be able to show Alex how InfoWars can go toe-to-toe with the mainstream media and Andrew controls one of the most useful alternative platforms.

This is why the average individual should NEVER speak to the media. Jones did everything people customarily recommend - he recorded the interview, he recorded the requests for the interview, he released some of the recordings,

It's like Emmanuel Goldstein, trying to get his side of things across during a Two-Minute Hate.

People like Cernovich and Jones keep the pressure on the MSM. For good or bad, they are a minefield for those like Kelly. If Jones is a kook that no one takes seriously, why would Kelly court an interview with such fervor? NBC, a lion of the MSM, interviewing Alex Jones? What?

One of the reasons Alex can pull off something like this is that he's a force of personality that's rare and has his own platform, but anyone can be on the receiving end of deceptive editing. Granted, one massive thing that's gone in our favor over the last decade is the actual quality of work has gotten a lot lower in the MSM. They're still "good" because they have immense practice at it, but the quality, across the board, keeps slipping. Converges kills competence, and it's been getting more noticeable.

another aspect of this that you have to keep in mind;Alex makes enemies. extremely POWERFUL enemies. he makes enemies of BILLIONAIRES and governments. he is often an enemy of the US government ( lots of Derp State people attend Bohemian Grove ).

i'm not sure how much of the Alex Jones "crazy" is just a show he puts on because he doesn't want to wind up with a CIA recommended RDA of polonium.

it's much the same thing with David Icke, for the same reasons, i think.

Jones is over the top, which is why I never paid much attention to him, but the reality is he's still alive. A good number of people looking into the darker web of evil in the 80s through even now end up dead. We know a lot of details of the messy stuff the CIA was up to from journalists that are now quite dead.

The single biggest problem with the interview was that Jones did not appear to be prepared for the obvious hit piece questions. There was no way he should not have had succinct, prepared statements ready for questions about Sandy Hook, 9/11, and other signal controversies.

Sandy Hook is another Black (no ID on the fuselage) Helicopter thing. There may be something to it but going into it is outside the Overton Window. No mileage in talking about it.

roughcoat wrote:She only looks hot on TV. She's bony and showing her age in candid shots.

The news networks have makeup and lighting professionals easily on par with those in Hollywood.

Because most women get hefty with age, thin is a youth look. A lot of older women who maintain the slim 'youthful' body are fighting nature and end up with an unduly boney face. Plus if they don't work out enough it shows up in the limbs. They are right about beauty standards being a crock for women, but I doubt it can be avoided. Youth carries with it appeal in women.

Alex is just too, "The world is apocalypsing right now, or tomorrow, or very, very soon." Timing slightly off, for the immediate clicks. Sometimes his titles don't match content. Yet his politics are okay, and he does have a huge audience.

Without too deep of a dive on Sandy Hook, there's enough information to suggest something was being setup for a gun control push. Some sort of PsyOps. However, the response from everyone involved around the topic shows clear signs that something went really, really wrong, which is why the cover-up is so messy.

It gets worse when you ask the simple question: why did they leave 20 children to bleed to death? The follow-up is: Why were any children in a building that was supposed to be closed because of abestos?

I have mixed feelings about Alex Jones too. I remember that just a few years ago he was saying that the government was getting the FEMA camps ready. That hasn't come to pass. Jones does himself no favors when he puts out wild notions. He hurts his credibility on issues where he has a point.

The single biggest problem with the interview was that Jones did not appear to be prepared for the obvious hit piece questions. There was no way he should not have had succinct, prepared statements ready for questions about Sandy Hook, 9/11, and other signal controversies.

Is it possible that he had those statements but NBC chose not to air them?

I agree it reeks of a plan b to fast and furious. The media conveniently forgets all the stories they were running about american guns being smuggled into mexico and that the mexican president gave a speech to Congress in 2009 about that very subject. Fast and furious broke after that and all the sudden no one could remember those stories or connect the dots.

@28. dc, I'd say that by and large there's a clear core on both sides, and the vast majority of people are already much closer to one side or the other.

I don't think we're in the coalescing phase any more. It's more like "increasing friction and watching sparks bounce off the stack of dynamite under the flywheels" at this point. It's going down, and it's going down in this half of the decade. The only question now is how much fuse remains.

The Spirit Cooking revelations was a watershed moment. It nearly broke Black Twitter, just to put it into perspective. Getting on record and with repeatable proof that the Elites like to go to occult worship events put a LOT of things on the table for being true.

Though the man cucks on race and gender issues, he is feared by the Left, has contacts galore, a massive audience and generally shoots left. We are the better for him. If he prospers after this hit piece he may be reaching antifragile status. Time will tell.

Apparently the producers ramped up the temperature in the room he was waiting in (at least I recall Alex saying that). I wonder why he remained in pace for that I would have just got up and left. I personally like him and listen to him a lot. I started watching him on Public Access TV when I lived in Austin back in the 90's. He is pretty accurate in a lot of what he says. Many of his guests are credible IMO. Kelly is stupid but certainly trying to climb the career ladder and she keeps getting platforms to do it. I can't stand watching her at all.

This is a "360 win" for AJ! The people that already hated him will still hate him. His followers support will ossify behind him. But the casual observer who is curious to learn more will check out Infowars and some of them will become new followers.

I look around at what is going on and I have ot wonder if Illinois is the snowflake that triggers the next leg down in social mood.

The cascading effects of a state being recognized as bankrupot are massive. From pensions blowing up, to average joe's losing their income, to vendoiors having to wrote off huge amounts of recieveables the state owes them.... Even if the Feds bail them out it doesnt stop the chaos.

Yes and no. He should have because he claims he knew it was a hit piece from the start.

But I think this will prove to be AJ's Thanatos Gambit. Fake News, on the other hand, gained nothing.

Look at this way. Even the Pakman interview of Vox ultimately backfired on him (David, not Vox), but only after a negative first impression (of Vox). Alex may or may not have had Cernovich's wonderful poise on 60 Minutes (and I haven't watched anything other than his teaser of her pitch to him), but he seems to be enjoying himself, and further, he's obviously getting good advice from Cernovich himself. With time, I believe he will be seen as holding his own against them, which is enough for now.

Sandy hook is fascinating if for no other reason then than the demonstration of how blind the average sheep is. With sandy hook, even a casual look at the events shows that things dont add up. You dont even have to get into the melting temperature of steel. condemned building, crisis sctors laughing and chatting just before heart broken interviews, and on and on...Peoples resistence to something that causes them to acknowledge their cognitive dissonces is very strong.

However you feel about Alex Jones, Kelly and Brokaw just underscored that NBC is where to go if you want smarmy moralism and the politically correct filters. And I don't think that helps them at all anymore.

This won't help the MSM one bit while helping Alex Jones a lot. We will we see what the stats are in a couple days but even in my left-wing barber shop the few who saw it didn't understand what the fuss was about. Means the message they projected didn't hit target.

Interesting the linked article doesn't mention anything about Jones, recording their interview and leaking their conversations online this weekend. That's what I've seen most people commenting on and the irony that Kelly, in their first phone conversation promised it wouldn't be a hatchet job when it seems it was.

Honestly, I can't really take Jones seriously. If I recall he once ranted something about the government preparing against zombies and initially claimed Trump was some secret society plant, before changing course and praising him. I don't listen to him so I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember someone linking to the relevant shows where he made those claims.

I am curious however, what are the basic arguments for Sandy Hook being a psyops? Nothing too detailed, just wondering what "anomalies" are people talking about when they say it seemed fishy?

The school was more than likely closed for the 4 years before the events, yet opened back up for that year. The internal pictures we have, away from the events, would not fly in any school district I've ever seen. (Fire hazards of boxes everywhere.) An expensive camera system that didn't record and ever never fixed the entire school year to that point?

The biggest give away that something is really off is that they changed the state's FOIA law to prevent the release of certain information. Though why were their men in fatigues running around outside the school? And a whole host of other messy details.

My personal read is that this was supposed to be some setup Op to push gun control, maybe a few people get dead, add some crisis actors and a few other details and you've got a national push. But either Lanza wasn't supposed to be the Perp or he went really off the rails. One conceivable possiblity is that he was "signed up" to go to prison, he didn't find out until he was in the building that he was going to suicide himself. Would explain the reason to suppress the crime scene photos, as there actually was a fire-fight inside the building.

Still, a bunch of children were left to bleed to death, and that's not be adaquetely addressed.

"But did she request a debate or an interview with him? And what sort of honest debate format has ever permitted one disputant to edit the statements made by both sides?"

That needs to be said over and over to those who are still clinging angrily to the idea fairness is important to the media or the left in general. I am still amazed at those who think its cogent to point out the hypocrisy, bias, and outright corruption of the media. They are clinging to an idealized fantasy of a "free and independent press" that no longer exists, if it ever did. Would pointing out to such people that playing captain obvious isn't helpful, or moving the discussion to the right at this point. All it accomplishes is the status quo remains, while they let the world know they recognize something destructive & obvious, yet refuse to do anything about it beyond griping about it endlessly.

Quilp wrote:"But did she request a debate or an interview with him? And what sort of honest debate format has ever permitted one disputant to edit the statements made by both sides?"

That needs to be said over and over to those who are still clinging angrily to the idea fairness is important to the media or the left in general. I am still amazed at those who think its cogent to point out the hypocrisy, bias, and outright corruption of the media. They are clinging to an idealized fantasy of a "free and independent press" that no longer exists, if it ever did. Would pointing out to such people that playing captain obvious isn't helpful, or moving the discussion to the right at this point. All it accomplishes is the status quo remains, while they let the world know they recognize something destructive & obvious, yet refuse to do anything about it beyond griping about it endlessly.

The other piece of note is who they do give live interviews/ rights to veto the final piece post editing. Somehow it is always people who support the narrative. These offers are never made to people who might say something that contradicts the narrative.

I covered part of it in my response to Ransom, but there's chunks of information pointing to an event at Sandy Hook in the days leading up. Some of the donation accounts that were setup were created, though not archived, a few days prior. Those are a tad random.

The ones that aren't is the 4 years of inactivity on the school's website, which lines up with the abestos closure finding in 2008. Why was a school closed for abestos reopened? Why did CT pass a FOIA exemption law in 2014 to prevent the crime scene photos from coming out? Why were there Men in military fatigues running away from the location?

The biggest red flags are the Medical Examiner interviews and the "Dad" that clearly works himself up to talk about his dead child. Seeing those video clips gets you questioning all of the details really fast. Either the entire thing was a setup or they managed to capture on film a few people that are arch sociopaths. We have a couple of decades of film of greiving families, and you normally only get responses like that when sometime later the person is on trial for the murder. They were also talking about sueing Bushmaster before the bodies were cold.

Oh, and the bodies? They moved them out at 1 am. Ain't that odd. There's way too much that is just odd, especially when in every other major shooting we've gotten all of the information, eventually.

It doesn't really matter a ton that it was a giant hit piece - mainstream perception is that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist and this interview did nothing to change that. It merely exposed more people to him, and given the complete contempt the media is held in I doubt they did anywhere near the damage they think they did to him. People have been calling Alex Jones crazy for a long time, and it hasn't stopped him yet.

Only idiots mess with the media. Cernovich, jones don't seem to understand, when it comes to the media, sheer numbers outweigh everything else. Most people don't even know what all the uproar was about, they just know what the MSM said. And even if they don't trust the MSM, that is still all they know. My advice, just try to stay completely off their radar. Eventually they lose interest. If your reputation is still intact, count yourself lucky.

When I first came to the dark side I thought Alex Jones was a televangelist, I just did not get him. People said he "was a little out there" like Rush on meth. But you know, lately, the world is so weird it takes a Jones to match the zeitgeist. Crazy times call for crazy prophets.

Last year my summer project was conspiracy theories. I dug into a dozen or so conspiracy theories to see if I could be convinced. Flat earth? Nah. Fake moon landing? Nah. Sandy Hook? Odd. The families-just off. We had a young child die under tragic circumstances in my family. She had a little white coffin just like the kids at Sandy Hook. My family is weird but Norfolk N' Way would ANYBODY EVER consider taking Sharpie markers to doodle all over the little white coffin that child rested in. NO EFFIN' WAY PEOPLE!!! And there was no laughing and joking, just pure unmitigated horror starting the day of the accident till now, 14 years later.

People who are pretending Cernovich & Jones 'won' are mistaken. That's not to say it's not helpful to the movement for people to fall on their swords now and then. But in the final analysis, that's what they did.

The only things saving Trump is his twitter feed. And Rush. And the fact that he is constantly on the attack. The MSM is constantly responding. Believe me, they may hate his guts, but they enjoy the game. Cernovich and Jones tried to do it the old way, tried to win on the facts. In Trump's world, what's a fact? How could they miss that?

Watched the whole thing last night via the InfoWars live stream. Was pretty clear that they were using Alex as a stepping stone to get to Trump. Yeah, he could have been better prepared, but it was obvious that he was more of the stepping stone to attack the administration than anything else. The token Never Trumper cuckservative they interviewed was a nice reach, too.

And then they wheeled Brokaw out. Man hasn't had any credibility in 20 years. You know it's bad when they have to wheel out the ol' has been to try and enhance your story's credibility. And he didn't even do that well enough to convince anyone.

@RobertT,What exactly did Cerno or Jones lose? Audience? Mainstream credibility? Momentum?No. The idea that either one actually lost anything is ridiculous. Their audiences already don't like, trust, or listen to the TV media. The mainstream was never going to give them credibility. The national exposure aids their momentum.Stop looking for reasons to fail.

Honestly, I can't really take Jones seriously. If I recall he once ranted something about the government preparing against zombies and initially claimed Trump was some secret society plant, before changing course and praising him. I don't listen to him so I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember someone linking to the relevant shows where he made those claims.

I would think he'd be right up your alley, considering that your standards are clearly as low as those you accuse him of having.

Only 3.5mm people watched. That looks low for a national news magazine show.

How many listeners/viewers does info wars get in a week?

According to early Nielsen data, the first 30 minutes NBC's "Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly" was easily beaten by Fox's U.S. Open Golf Championship coverage and CBS's "60 Minutes," which is in summer repeats.

The second half-hour of Kelly's news magazine, after the Jones interview aired, fared even worse, finishing fourth in total viewers while tying ABC's "America's Funniest Home Videos" for third in the key 18-49 demographic networks covet most.

The mass media is far more diabolical than even much of the alt-right recognizes. There's no destroying or replacing it, any more than man can destroy evil. By all means we should continue to build alternative platforms, that's why I financially support GAB and Infogalactic, but somehow trying to game an evil system and get more exposure is a losing proposition in the long run.

The best work on the mass media I've ever read is: "Addicted to Distraction: Psychological consequences of the modern Mass Media" by Bruce G. Charlton. Its free online or $3 on Kindle. The mass media is leftism incarnate, the Bolshevik Revolution, critical theory, feminism, etc. all rolled into one. I can't recommend that book highly enough, as well as "Thought Prison: the Fundamental Nature of Political Correctness" by the same author.

Rob wrote:Honestly, I can't really take Jones seriously. If I recall he once ranted something about the government preparing against zombies and initially claimed Trump was some secret society plant, before changing course and praising him. I don't listen to him so I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember someone linking to the relevant shows where he made those claims.

Use the Google

The CDC here

https://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies.htm

does in fact maintain a zombie plan for the public. Its presumably meant as metaphor for epidemics or other disasters but it is a real thing as are "zombie" attacks

ABC News reported on Florida incidents of what are called colloquially even called zombie attacks

The only thing gained in these exercises in futility ( aka. as a “media interviews” ) is that we willingly cede to these liars and fraudsters an undeserved power as the gatekeepers of “truth”. In this case credibility has once again been given to an aged fake blonde who desperately wants to be taken seriously and seen as a stalwart of cutting edge journalism. In truth - she lacks any curiosity or desire for truth and has an average IQ. She’s able to make up for these failings because she has a vast army behind her who is able to perform an array of glorified parlor tricks to give her and the machine she represents the outcome they desire. She honestly could be a mascot for the times. A fake and liar to the core with pretenses of honesty and sincerity.

Had a newspaper editor call me three weeks ago, for an interview about some regional subject. Didn’t return the call. Screw em - even at the regional level, over an uncontroversial topic, they’re leftist liars with an agenda to push.

This is a good thing, over all. Alex Jones already has the reputation he was painted with, and it's now widely documented how the media edited the interview to fit into their hit piece. The public is becoming more and more savvy to the lies and tricks it uses to manufacture fake news. It's retroactive. All the stories they've done over the decades that were proven to be wrong and chalked up to earnest mistakes are seen in the new light of being intentionally manufactured. Its only appeal will be to people that actually enjoy and prefer to be lied to.

@84 True, he does always sweat profusely -- it must come from his proper hydration.

With Jones on NBC -- I think it's too early to tell.

I think Cernovich broke even or did a bit better with his appearance on 60Minutes, which given that 60Min practically invented modern TV journo-propaganda is doing pretty well. Still, I would maintain: "Do not try this at home."

The most kind explanation for the non-release of information is as follows:

In the case of an active shooter the Police SOP is supposed to be: all available units head to the site, sirens on. When they get there, they jump out of the car, level the siren on and head on in, shooting anything that is up and moving and looks like it could be vaguely hostile. If they fall, the next unit coming in will do the same thing, the idea being the shock and awe will generally cause the active shooter to kill himself.

The reason this will work without a lot of kids killed in the cross fire, is the SOP for schools is to get all the children down in a corner of each classroom, prone and in the smallest most compact area they can, so they will not be hit by the first responders rushing the school.

In a case in PA where a sick bastard decided to go into a Amish school and methodically kill all the kids by torture the State police did just this and saved most of the kids lives. Great work and the PA state police deserve a big pat on the back for that. By the way in that case the shooter killed himself.

In Sandy Hook the first officer there, who was less than 90 seconds away, chickened out and waited for back-up before he went in, which took 5~6 minutes. Which was sufficient time for Lanza to get into a class and kill everyone of the bunched up kids, with multiple hits as they were pretty much one large mass in the corner of the class.

In essence the police screwed up and did not want to admit it. The failure of the police is what caused the large death toll. Same as they did back in Denver with the Columbine massacre. In that case there was even an armed security guard who fled to the parking lot to "secure the perimeter". The policeman who failed the character test and the department did not want to admit, that for all their buzz shaves and bad ass looking gear, they pretty much were incompetent. A moment of hesitation by a cop caused this.

That is the simplest explanation and fits with what facts have been leaked. In particular the lack of any published after action report, which is always done to show what went right and wrong and how to improve on the SOP. Makes a lot more sense than some of the exotic theories out there that require too many folks to be in the conspiracy.

By the way, all of the above came from leaks within the CT state police, published in the 2014 time frame but since forgotten.

The destruction of the house and other troublesome post event cover-up stuff seems to remind me of the attempt by the media to do something similar with Dylan Roof (black church massacre). Any time a crime might lead one to question the existence of objective good and evil, along with raising the issue that perhaps battles not of a temporal existence having relevance are shut down. It must be the confederate flag with Dylan roof and with Lanza and connection to Satanism must be shifted to gun control instead. Examinations of the media-state publically imposed materialist world-view must be shut down. Not sure on this second point but it does seem to be anytime the natural examination of a crime would lead one to examine the evidence for objective evil as an entity, the press does all they can to change the subject by whatever means possible.

"Any time a crime might lead one to question the existence of objective good and evil, along with raising the issue that perhaps battles not of a temporal existence having relevance are shut down."

I don't follow. They turn any and everything to their advantage. Whatever they can make stick. Never let a crisis go to waste. Kennedy was assassinated by a commie upset with his treatment of Cuba, but according to the MSM is was about the climate of hate in the South, then next thing you know we have a series of new civil rights laws.

The same goes for cover-up, but in reverse. Anything that can hurt anyone with power, they'll use that power to ensure people either forget or never find out. Objective evil, Satanism, demonic possession, or whatever it is, that may provide extra motivation. But you'll find the cover-up/change the subject M.O. in their absence.

Re: police response to active shooters, I was once in a building that supposedly had an active shooter in it. The police put a perimeter around the building and did nothing. They made no effort to tell people in the building to stay put or whatever because there was a dangerous lunatic inside, and they sure as hell didn't enter the building.

I found out something was going on when I left the building on the way to my car and met a cop telling me to put my hands up and walk slowly toward him. All the cops did was wait for people to come out, then search them. It was a false alarm, but if it hadn't been the shooter might have killed loads of people before the cops got around to actually doing something proactive to stop him. There were a couple hundred people in the building.

That happened just a few years before Sandy Hook, so it's not like mass shootings were unknown events at the time.

Cops exist to clean up the mess, collect the bodies, and arrest people. And to gather revenue for the town, of course. They're not employed to protect citizens, no matter what they claim to the contrary.

If one of your key talking points is that the media is a monolithic powerful bully that deigns to squash the little good guys, then submitting to a hit piece helps build your credibility. I can see why a guy like Jones or Cernovich would submit to it. The majority of us lack that anti-fragility.

Jones comes off as an animal in a zoo to be gawked at. When given his big chance to spread his ideas to a larger audience, he doesn't just fumble it....he avoids pushing his cases. Given his performance the other day and other the years, this idiot couldn't have been credibility if Kelly had just given him a microphone, not said a word and let him talk on his own.

The Last Dinner wrote:How can anyone, let alone the mainstream media, give anyone credibility who:Claims Hillary Clinton is a nice, grandmotherly lady who is healthy, competent and trustworthy.Claims Obama was both involved and competent a President.Claims political violence in this country comes from the Right.asserts the thousand other obvious lies of The Narrative.

When given his big chance to spread his ideas to a larger audience, he doesn't just fumble it....

Alex's audience is 5-6 times larger than Megyn Kelly's. Megyn Kelly's audience is 80% people who would never have even thought about Alex Jones, and certainly never bothered to look him up.Going on TV is a step down in audience for Alex.

Far-right? The msm considers *anyone* to be far-right if it suits them. The LA Times? They probably consider Ben Shapiro a far-right neo-Nazi. I'd hate to know what they'd call me. Wait-no, I don't care, come to think of it.

Grayman wrote:I look around at what is going on and I have ot wonder if Illinois is the snowflake that triggers the next leg down in social mood.

Don't be worryin' yo gray head now. We has vast unending necropoles filled with countless legions of spectral electors who can be counted on to vote as often as needed whenever the overlords command it. That's surely worth a bailout or three, no? Illnoize - Where governors make your license plates.

Looking Glass, I appreciate what you're saying but I think you're overthinking it.

Gun to my head "moment of truth", Sandy Hook ABSOLUTELY is fake.

But what you're describing (not without reason) as the "gone wrong" quality has to do, I think, with the fact that SH was the kickoff for what I think of as "Two Fast Two Furious". There probably were no deaths, unless some thespian went off the rails somehow during the broadcast.

I suspect SH may have begun as the enthusiastic civies going to the Alphabet Soupers with the idea-- that might help explain the amateur hour quality of so much of the theatrics.

In subsequent psy ops mass casualty non-shootings, I think the intel pros took charge, or at any rate read over the scenarios more carefully. There is still a vast amount of obvious fakery in many of these events, some of it so over-the-top as to come off (like WTC 7) as chutzpah; but Sandy Hook, I suspect, is largely a kind of (((Stepford))) PTA production.

In any event, the kids clearly don't exist, not as described for the sake of the events in question. Some of the SuperBowl Sandy Hook kids indeed look awfully familiar, except they are several years older.

But in short, SH is just theatre. Bloodless, but absolutely evil, theatre.

The final segment of this video, starting circa 13:35, is an absolute doozie, and with all my SH immersion I don't believe I'd ever seen it till last week:

But to put it a bit more clearly: I think there's a barnyard musical quality to Sandy Hook, which is what Looking Glass hints at but thinks of, it seems, as something getting out of hand somehow, a sort of "Parallax View" event with a live shooter or at any rate some token patsy madman who somehow exceeded his mandate.

If any mandate were exceeded at all, it might only be the fact that not everyone involved realized some sort of emergency drill was going to get flipped "live" and turn into a "real event" they were going to have to stick with or else. The Marlon Brando's Kurtz-esque doc gives off something of that vibe.

But mostly, I think the SH players are True Believers (likely longtime low-level Alphabet Soup assets and/or associates of the new agey synagogue in Newtown or the psychiatric-industrial complex), thrilled to be Doing Their Part.

This one will make you gasp at the blatant hoaxing!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP0UkqkKuF4 "Sandy Hook 'Dad' Caught Playing Two Roles: Crisis Actor Parent and Swat Team Member Part 1 " (15 min.)

Those two will start you off pretty well. You may not want to dive into the rabbit hole, cause it takes a lot of video watching and reading to separate out the solid info from the DIS-info and the just-plain-crazy info. On the other hand, going down that hole will give you more than enough info to cease questioning if it was false!

One more Sandy Hook comment-- I haven't looked it the details of Sandy Hook in any real depth, and it looks as if others have, so I'll make a more general point. Regardless of the extent to which the official narrative of that incident is true(or not); claiming that it was staged, and doing so on a platform with millions of viewers, is dangerous for the legacy media. The larger message conveyed by Jones' interpretation of Sandy Hook is what really matters, and that message is: "TV isn't real. Some of what they show you on the news is true, but some of it isn't-- and there is no easy, straightforward way to tell the difference." If a significant fraction of the population should listen to, and internalize, this broader message, that would be a Very Bad Thing; not just the legacy media, but for the narrative in general.

@15 VoodooJockFrom a strategic standpoint, is it better to build our own media outlets and do hit pieces on them, or is it better to continue with a more guerilla approach like we're doing with memes?

Yes

@81 Mountain ManThere was nothing more gratifying than to watch Putin verbally b!tch slap that fake in her interview with him

Yeah, that was entertaining. Between the ones where she simply didn't know enough to ask a follow up question, and the ones where she was afraid to (because Putin's answers were going too far beyond the narrative). Pretty entertaining. I think my favorite was when, in responding to a question about Trump and "Climate change," Putin started his response by asking "Have you read the Paris Accords?" [Pause, stare, head shake, answers his own question] "No."

@77 Nick

The best work on the mass media I've ever read is: "Addicted to Distraction: Psychological consequences of the modern Mass Media" by Bruce G. Charlton. Its free online or $3 on Kindle. The mass media is leftism incarnate, the Bolshevik Revolution, critical theory, feminism, etc. all rolled into one. I can't recommend that book highly enough, as well as "Thought Prison: the Fundamental Nature of Political Correctness" by the same author.

I very much second the recommendation for "Thought Prison." This is one of the clearest, most plausible non-JQ explanations for the rise of the modern Left, and for how leftist "morality" works, that I've ever seen. Plus it's much more time-efficient than reading hundreds of thousands of words of moldbug. I also recommend Charlton's piece "Clever Sillies" (on the interwebz). I've never read "Addicted to Distraction"-- I'll have to get that one.

One thing that bothers me about the whole Sandy Hook hoax narrative is why nothing much seems to have come of it. I could see how a school shooting rampage could be used to roll back gun rights, but that never really happened.

So, if Sandy Hook really was a false flag operation, what was the point and what did accomplish? I would agree a lot of details seem fishy, but I can't really see a point to it being faked.

@77-Thought Prison is what I'd recommend if I could only choose one book on PC. It punches so far above its weight that it's almost too densely packed. I had to read it three times before I was confident I understood enough.

"The mass media is far more diabolical than even much of the alt-right recognizes"

That's true. Think of this site, which is in one of those Dark Corners of the Internet, disseminating badthink multiple times a day. It's fairly independent of the mass media Hive Mind, but much of its content is commentary upon things produced within the media bubble, or commentary on the media's commentary on things happening in real-life. Which is to say it's still within the bubble to a certain extent. And I'm not sure we c an ever get away from that, unless we join a culture built by earnest cord-cutters. Like on a commune, or something.

That's part of the point of Addicted to Distraction. There isn't really any escaping it. Not yet at least.

He also has a good book on the sorry state of science called Not Even Trying.

SOP since Columbine has been to charge the shooter. Somewhere over 90% of them are actually there to commit suicide. (There's a long discussion about the anti-depressants causing this effect in the suicidal, but that's separate.) Thus first incidence of functional response to the shooter will normally turn their gun on themselves. It's the reason Concealed Carry has saved more lives than have been lost to mass shootings in the States.

Though I do know of some effects of Sandy Hook is a lot of the training is shifting to "block the door then flee the other way". Side-point: Flying Textbooks turn out to be a very viable weapon.

@105 luciussomesuch

The problem with events like Sandy Hook is that the Human Mind generally wants one linear explanation for events. Sandy Hook has looked "off" from the start for a lot of reasons, as you and other mentioned. But it also doesn't mean it isn't possibly 3 separate things. 1) Hoax for Gun-control push into 2) RealOp because Lanza did something off into 3) Emergency Cover-up.

I wouldn't normally reference a movie, but if you remember "Wag the Dog" you'll get the idea. (I'm still dead certain that movie was a pure accident to ever get made, as it was just way too close to the truth about real events.) Something can happen in the middle of events that causes a huge monkey wrench into plans.

That video at the end of the one set of parents (I believe that's also the guy that did the laughing to crying bit) is brutal. If you've ever met parents that lost a young child, it's YEARS before some of them can put on a happy face like both were wearing. Unless they were a perfect pair of sociopaths, they're clearly acting a part.

Deep-diving into too much stuff in the last few years has shown me that the Government actually only has 1 approach for covering up an event. They flood the space with so much information that you're never sorting it all out unless one of the main Handlers gives a death-bed confession. When it's hard for very good professional researchers to sort things out, you know they've accomplished the job. (That's why video of Hillary falling was so devasting to her campaign.) So they just keep flooding the space and forcing the Media to either ignore things or report other things over the top. They use sensationalism to their advantage.

As something of a reference point, whenever WTC7 comes up, everyone has so many positions on the topic that it tends to veer hard out of control. The most likely explanation can be figured out by simply who was in the building. The Secret Service's largest field office was there, along with office space that the DoD & CIA shared. The most straight-forward answer (since something blew up) is that one of the offices had a huge pile of explosives that shouldn't have been there. Heck, they might have had some MANPADs or the like. Without water and the fire raging, they simply couldn't get to the location to prevent the eventual explosion. It would explain the clear-out order, yet maybe 3 people on the face of the earth actually needed to know why. And they were never going to talk.

You can end up with an event like 9/11 and the add-on responses that are actually completely separate from each other. Lanza could have been a patsy that figured out he was getting suicided at the last moment and all Hell broke lose as a result. Or he could have started an actual Op when they were planning something anyway. (It's not like two bank robbers haven't ever accidently tried to rob the same bank at the same time.) But sorting out the information is probably impossible for the time being, much in the way certain factions want it to be.

The operation got botched & badly, so the rollout went wrong, along with timing issues. It was in Dec 2012, so right before Christmas and without the proper optics it got lost in the shuffle. Obama's 2nd term started in Jan 2013, so the media cycle simply ate it up.

It was also the big rise in Social Media period, Twitter had only exploded in 2011. So there was a well-coordinated push back against any new anti-Gun regulations. PsyOps are a lot harder in the Social Media age, which is why when it didn't launch properly they just let it die. Who even remembers Sandy Hook without prompting? Columbine will be the go-to name because they flooded the space with the topic for nearly a decade.

It also doesn't help that Snowden set of events in June of 2013 that completely changed all online discussions permenantly.

Respectfully, Looking Glass, I still think your take on Sandy Hook (perhaps not the others?) seems a bit unnecessarily baroque. What reason have we to think there was an "Adam Lanza, shooter" at all? Esp. when we have only a painfully photoshopped, bottom-tier tabloid Alien Autopsy Revealed! photo for the boy, who otherwise was a supposed shutin?

I assume no actual deaths in Sandy Hook, certainly not of any children because there weren't any. There was no need for any live firing at all.

Now, assuming the WDBJ on-air shooting was fake (and the surviving "boyfriend" is profoundly suspicious, along with the grieflessly grieving father), whether Alison Parker is still alive, who can say? I can certainly imagine a coldly efficient disposal for all the volunteer non-victims who might as well, as far as the producers are concerned, stay dead for certain. Her "reward" for her commitment to a Gun Free America might have taken the form of a quick jab with a needle in the back of the getaway van.

Sandy Hook is, again, ESPECIALLY bad theatre. I think the mistake, the wrongness to which Looking Glass returns, is simply the decision to indulge so many bad actors. With subsequent waves of "mass shootings" we get plenty of bad crisis actors, but almost none of them have to grieve for supposed lost six-year olds. That, I think, is what makes them seem comparatively more believable, despite the great problems many of them (including the Pulse nightclub) present.

On a subconscious level, I suspect many normal people recognize the offness of Sandy Hook, they've just never been convinced (and it's a tribulation to do so) to submit themselves to looking critically at any of the montages of the "grieving" "parents".

--As an aside, I have to say I'm dubious about this notion that a cache of MANPADS would bring down WTC 7. A Stinger's warhead is 3kg: a few of these going off wouldn't produce a building-destroying explosion, and if there were somehow enough of them stowed to produce an HMS Hood-style cataclysm, then regardless, the building wouldn't neatly sink into its own footprint!